list_nodes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output fields and parameter options, adding behavioral context beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'list' implies it, and no side effects are mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section is efficient without superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an available output schema. The description explains the return contents (status, OS, K8s version) and the cluster options, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by defining the 'cluster' parameter with its allowed values ('local'/'cloud') and default, which is absent from the schema. This is essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb '列出' (list) with a clear resource '集群中的所有节点' (all nodes in the cluster), and enumerates the returned fields (status, OS, K8s version). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pods or list_namespaces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on the cluster parameter, explicitly naming the two valid options (local and cloud) and the default. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the context for cluster selection is clear and practical.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.